US v. Michael Bower, No. 10-4955 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: <
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4955 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MICHAEL CHAD BOWERS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00240-TDS-1) Submitted: May 31, 2011 Decided: June 9, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Craven III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael imposed stolen Chad Bowers appeals following his guilty plea to conspiracy of 18 U.S.C. firearms, possession of in violation stolen firearms, in the 327-month sentence possess § 371 violation to (2006); of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j) and 924(a)(2) (2006); and two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2006). in violation of 18 U.S.C. Counsel for Bowers filed a brief in this court in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the district court erred in overruling Bowers objections to the Presentence Report ( PSR ) and whether Bowers received ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel meritorious grounds supplemental brief. states, for however, appeal. that Bowers he has filed found a no pro se We affirm. Bowers objections to the PSR are largely factual in nature. addressed At and sentencing, rejected the district Bowers adopted the facts in the PSR. objections court to individually the PSR, and This court reviews such factual determinations for clear error. United States v. Jenkins, 566 F.3d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 2009). We have reviewed the district court s rulings as to each of the claims raised and find no clear error. 2 Further, Bowers is not entitled to relief on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We will address a claim of ineffective assistance on direct appeal only if the lawyer s ineffectiveness States v. conclusively appears Baldovinos, Otherwise, 434 F.3d such are more claims on 233, the 239 properly record. (4th United Cir. in raised 2006). motion a filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010). Our review not convinces us that ineffective assistance does conclusively appear on the face of this record, and therefore we decline to address this claim on direct appeal. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Bowers, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Bowers Court of requests the that United a States petition be for further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Bowers. We dispense affirm with oral the judgment argument of the because 3 district the facts court. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
